Journal of Water and Wastewater; Ab va Fazilab (in persian)

Journal of Water and Wastewater is a peer reviewed open access journal that aims to respect the international publication standards. To do so, the peer review process is done in a double blinded way where neither the reviewer(s) nor the author(s) are not aware of one another identity.

The submitted manuscripts that fit the scopes and the format of journal will be reviewed and enter the publication process after the editor-in-chiefs final approval.

Here is the flowchart:

 

 

Peer Review Process: The peer review process is utilized for evaluating and ascertaining the publishability of scientific papers. The process is carried out as follows:
________________________________________
Step 1: Evaluation by the Editorial Board
1. Internal Assessment:
• All papers are initially screened by an editorial committee comprising at least two members of the editorial board.
• Main purpose: To decide the article's potential for external review or rejection outright (Desk Rejection).

2. Fast Rejection Criteria:
   • Lack of compatibility with the journal's purpose and scope of expertise
   • Inability to adhere to minimum publication requirements (e.g., article structure or research ethics)
   To prevent any unjustified delays, the decision at this point is communicated to the authors within a period of at most one to two weeks.
   
   
3. Constructive Feedback:
   In instances where the article needs to be corrected, suggestions for improvement are provided to the authors so that requisite changes can be made before submission to outward review.
   ________________________________________
   Step 2: Double-blind international peer review by experts
   1. Selection of Reviewers:
   Eligible articles are assessed by an international jury of peer reviewers who have expert knowledge in the field.
   The peer review process is conducted in a double-blind manner, under the supervision of both the section editor and the journal editor.
   
   
4. Confidentiality:
   The journal takes all necessary precautions to preserve both authors' and reviewers' anonymity.
   It is the authors' responsibility to safeguard their anonymity, such as not referring to their names in the "Acknowledgments" or referencing previous articles.

Timing and Final Decision
• Review Period: A maximum of 4–8 weeks following confirmation of entry into the external peer review phase.
• Note: Delays are possible in some cases; therefore, authors are asked to wait at least 8 weeks from the date of submitting the article before querying the journal for the result.

• Editor's Authority: Only the editor of the journal has the ultimate authority to accept or reject a paper and it is reserved.
  
  

Role of Reviewers: Reviewers have an important role to allow the journal to conduct peer review in anonymous, two-way manner. Reviewers must never disclose their identity. If a reviewer finds that a paper is technically not qualified, cannot be reviewed in a timely manner, or represents a conflict of interest, they must withdraw from reviewing at once.
All submissions are kept confidential, and obtaining outside advice may need approval from the editor. No reviewer should refer an article to someone else but instead reject it.
Being pillars of quality assurance, reviewers have an obligation to ensure published papers are high in quality and originality. If a reviewer finds out that a paper is being considered for publication elsewhere, they should alert the journal office.
There is no standard process for reviewing a scholarly article; it varies based on the paper's scientific quality, content significance, and novelty. The overall review guidelines are:
• Adherence to author guidelines and format
• Purpose clarity and rational coherence (from introduction to conclusion)
• Relevant references and support for arguments
• Spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Reviewers are required to read the articles carefully and give objective, well-documented feedback. The ultimate acceptance or rejection of the article rests with the journal's editor.

• You are required to provide elaborate comments to the Section Editor and Editor-in-Chief. These comments will form the basis of the final decision, which shall be concluded collectively with the Editorial Committee in research and analysis articles.
  • The final outcome (whether the article is accepted, revised, or rejected) will be communicated to you. Even if the article is not going to be published, your constructive comments will be conveyed for the betterment of the work of the author.

Guidelines for Peer Reviewers
All the submissions undergo double-blind peer review. We believe that peer review is key to ensuring the objectivity and quality of scientific and academic research.

Confidentiality and Professional Ethics:
• Articles are kept as confidential documents at the time of review. Don't share the article contents with unauthorized individuals (including fellow colleagues).
• In the event of ignorance regarding the article topic or time constraints, please notify the editorial office immediately so that a different reviewer can be appointed. Suggested ideas by qualified reviewers are welcome too.

Review Guidelines:
1. Suitability of Subject: Refer to the journal's aims and subject scope in the "Guidelines for Authors" before reviewing.
2. Transparency and Accuracy
• State your comments as numbers, i.e., page and line numbers.
• Give your comments in plain language understandable to non-English speakers.
3. Scientific Ethics: Consider authors' works as your own. Critical comments should be logical, courteous, and constructive.
4. Language Corrections: In case any English language corrections (spelling, grammar, or punctuation) are needed, mention.

Final Notes:
• The referee report must be objective, descriptive, and in the journal's prescribed format.
• If the paper is to be recommended for revision, make constructive comments. If the paper is not considered suitable for publication, explicitly state the grounds of rejection.